I see no contradiction...

But I will respect your opinion and your right to voice it.

The Roe decision said that no State or Government agency can limit the choice of a woman to abort a pregnancy up to the point of "viability", without violating her civil rights. The problem with Roe is that no adequate definition of "viability" was made, and absolutely no consideration was given for the RIGHTS of the BABY or the FATHER in the decision-making process. Texas was violating "Roe's" right to get the abortion... so the decision went against Texas laws that made such abortions illegal. By extension, this now includes ALL States. However, had the FATHER of the child wanted it to go to term, no consideration for HIS rights was given, then or now.

And it goes without saying that those among us who recognize that the "child" within the womb becomes human at conception, rather than birth, feel that no consideration was given to the CHILD'S rights at all.

Couple that with the fact that in 1972, at the time of the decision, the earliest a premature baby had been born and lived (proving itself viable) was right at 30 weeks. Now, infants of 24 weeks have lived with routine regularity... yet the Court and society at large have never taken that into consideration.

The Roe decision was based on a privacy issue, and the mother's right to maintain it. This decision went against the rights of the FATHER and CHILD, in my opinion, and the former's is just as strong as the Mother's, while the latter's should be paramount in the eyes of the Court. Who's rights are more endangered that the defenseless child?

As for "punishing" a juvenile for making a "mistake" (i.e. justifying abortion as birth control), no concerns or worries are voiced of the 16 year old "gang-banger" that kills little old ladies in random drive-by shootings when he is facing his 3rd offense and life without parole, yet the average abortion-seeking teen has 2.5 of them BEFORE they are old enough to vote in this country. When are they expected to take on the responsibility of their actions if the gang-banger is expected to carry his responsibility? The gang-banger is responsible for the life he takes, even at 16... but the pregnant teen has no responsibility for her pregnancy EVER, in the eyes of the pro-abortion camp.

Time and time again I hear the defenders of abortion (this does NOT include Baddboy) saying "You can't legislate morality". However, if I am going to condemn such decisions as Dred Scott and Plessy, then how can I NOT condemn Roe? If institutional slavery in this country is morally wrong, then what right has the Government to make it illegal? If child pornography is morally wrong, then what right has the Government to limit my ability to view it? Because both of those extreme examples violate the rights of others (slaves and children)... but in the Roe decision, no consideration was given to the rights of the FATHER or the CHILD.

This, of course, ignores the simple FACT that all legislation of society and its behaviors defines moral action to some degree or another... but we can save that for another thread.